Quebec’s charter of values

Quebec's Premier Pauline Marois holds the Quebec Charter of Values at the National Assembly in Quebec City Tuesday.

Published on Sat Sep 14 2013

Re: An outrageous plan, Editorial Sept. 11

Re: Liberals oppose ban on religious symbols, Sept. 6

Re: The ‘other’ has no place in PQ’s charter of values, Opinion Sept. 3

An outrageous plan, Editorial Sept. 11

Quebec Premier Pauline Marois and her crowd are playing on the fear of difference. Also, there is an appealing assumption that the more homogeneous society is the more harmonious society is. “If only we all could be the same,” as the thinking go, “we all would be better off.” That is, of course, pure bunk. A quick scan of the world reveals that many countries that score high on the homogeneous scale are riven by political turmoil.

Unless Quebec’s Parti Quebecois is deliberately exploiting ignorance for political gain — that may well be the case — Premier Marois, seemingly, cannot understand that Quebec, like the rest of Canada, is already a well-established multicultural society and every effort must be made to make the best of it. It is far too late to return to a simpler time when its society was less diverse.

Besides, a multicultural society offers so much more, although it does come with challenges, but that goes for all societies and all civilizations.

Ms Marois has not shown any evidence that the wearing or displaying religious symbols within the public service is a problem that warrants government action. If a few people in Quebec are upset at seeing a turban or headscarf on a person’s head or a large Christian cross hanging around the neck, my advice to them is: Get over it. Where’s the harm? Besides, a threat of prohibition raises the risk of “waking up a sleeping giant.”

If the PQ government thinks it has a problem with religious symbols, wait until minority groups hit the streets in protest. It won’t be a picnic.

Far better that the Quebec government build its society on its diversity. There is plenty of it and Quebeckers can learn and benefit so much more from each other. Therein lies the beauty and richness of diversity.

John Harvard, former Lt. Governor, Manitoba, Winnipeg

The avalanche of hand-wringing and tut-tutting over Quebec’s bold move is truly pathetic. Mme. Marois has the right — indeed the historical duty — to defend her nation’s cultural values. English Canada stands to learn much from her courageous initiative.

A.L. Heenan, Toronto

In Quebec, legislators are trying to pass a law that restricts anyone in the public service from wearing symbols of their own religion like turbans, and head scarves etc. The legislators want to preserve the Quebec culture and believe that by restricting the use of other cultures’ symbolic garb, they are preserving the Quebec culture.

I am screaming in my head — what is the correlation between wearing a scarf and preserving Quebec culture? Surely the quality of work the public servant does for the Quebec public is much more important than what he wears?

Surely open minds can accommodate the notion that an individual can be of service to others and still be accorded the right to wear whatever that person chooses. Culture cannot be imposed on people.

People will carry on a culture if they view the customs as important and advantageous to them. When culture is imposed, it is doomed.

Bonnie Bacvar, North York

Isn’t journalism supposed to provide some balance in reporting? I have not read anything in your paper that simply explains the Quebec charter’s intent in an unbiased way. You’d think Quebec was promoting child molestation.

It’s clear that the Marois government is looking for an alternative to the policy of multiculturalism, but this is taboo. We are getting a one-sided condemnation from your newspaper, with no extra perspective.

Multiculturalism is only a recent official policy (the Trudeau years), and we have not yet seen its long-term effects. We can’t say then that multiculturalism is a universal, eternal value that is applicable always, everywhere until the end of time. We must continue to see it as a human invention that demands review, reflection and questioning. Let’s not close the debate and start a witch hunt against those who are opposed to it, please.

Erin McMurtry, Toronto

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important part of the Canadian Constitution as enacted in 1982 by Queen Elizabeth II and prime minister Pierre Trudeau. Among the many freedoms it guarantees is the freedom of religion as expressed within federal, provincial and municipal governments. It is designed to protect us from the xenophobic, divisive and narrow-minded ideals of politicians like Pauline Marois. Unfortunately, Quebec never formally signed the Constitution.

John Fraser, Toronto

Recently an Afghani father visited a GTHA school to enrol his 10 daughters who were wearing full veils. He demanded that his girls were not to sit next to boys; not allowed to take music, art or history; nor to participate in sports either co-ed or same sex; or extra-curricular activities.

We don’t understand why school authorities have to accommodate those requests rather than present three options — accept the public school system’s practices and curricula; home-school their children or attend a private school that honours their religious beliefs.

If our family moved to a Muslim country we doubt any requests for Western values would be accommodated. When you move to another country you adapt to that country, not the reverse and even more in the event of becoming citizens. Multiculturism is a noble concept but our Canadian culture needs to be respected and followed or does multiculturism trump all?

Roger & Brigitte Dykstra, Ancaster

I am deeply concerned that this new Quebec Charter will attack black African Canadian women.

With the new charter its also allows black women who choose to wear their hair in “dreadlocks” as promoting the Rastafari religion.

This acculturation can mention any Jata (Hindi) hair style could be considered promoting Hinduism.

Tibetan Buddhism and other more esoteric forms of Buddhism, also use dreadlocks hairstyle that would have to be change.

On a final note, this Charter of Quebec values does not end with a veil; it can relate to hairstyles to henna hand painting.

This new Quebec Charter does not define what it refers as symbols, Will this include henna hand painting?

I would ask you to ask the Pauline Marois, Premier of Quebec how far will this go. Predictors of acculturation strategies never succeed we only have to look at our own First Nations history.

Elizabeth Jackson, Toronto

I must admire this lady and her party for having the courage to do what most so-called “politically correct” governments did not have the intestinal fortitude to do —to protect true Canadian values and what our veterans in the past, and what our young men and women have died for and are still fighting for in many foreign lands. The ideals of Canadian Christianism.

That is being eroded to gain a few paltry votes is, indeed a matter that all Canadians should be looking at. For anyone to say this is unconstitutional is terribly far fetched. It appears that the constitution applies to only certain groups and sects that have no consideration for our inherent values,but only what they can foist upon us.

Lets delve into what is Constitutional and what isn’t. Is it constitutional to send money to other countries when we have food banks in our own, is it constitutional for some Canadian children to go hungry and uneducated while the government send billions to aid others, is it constitutional for our aboriginals to be treated as they are and suffer suicide rates beyond any norm, is it constitutional for seniors, who have worked hard all their lives to be dumped on in favour of people who have contributed not nearly as much to Canada and are wanting and demanding more than Canadians are getting, is it constitutional to sell our resources to foreign interest and bring in foreign workers to take the jobs allocated by these same resources, is it constitutional to use the CPP we have all contributed to to further interests in companies that are not Canadian and therefore do not offer jobs to our labour force.

Goings on in other countries should be a warning to us all.

G.A. Soehner, Hamilton

Enough is enough! When will our elected MPs get off their collective rear ends and say to the province of Quebec (not the country of Quebec): “This is Canada — you don’t like it here, pack your bags.” The wide diversity of people makes our country beautiful.

Murray Bernbaum, Richmond Hill

The last poll I looked at by CTV showed callers were 71 per cent in favour of Quebec’s proposal to adopt the new charter of values. So who is wrong and who is right?

W.D. Adamson, Scarborough

Once again our federal government leaps at the chance to go to court — to use taxpayers dollars to support its position against taxpayers.

Employment Minister Jason Kenney has reacted to the unfortunate Parti Quebecois proposed “values charter” with the threat of “vigorously” challenging the constitutionality of that legislation in court.

To become involved at the court level will require deep pockets for the retaining of experts, lawyers, researchers, staff, accommodations, etc, all of which will require compensation at the public’s expense. The obvious result is the taxpayer will be on the hook for both prosecution and, in Quebec, defence.

The appropriate response to state-sanctioned discrimination as profered by the PQ is the ballot box. Let the people of Quebec speak, and save the taxpayers the extraordinary expense of court proceedings, which with appellate availability will go on for years and years.

Morley S. Wolfe, Brampton

Why are the French always ahead of the rest of us? First France rightly bans burkas for the sexist and sexual oppression they represent (whether the practicing females realize they are oppressed or not). Now Quebec bravely attempts to do something similar (albeit religion-wide) with religious garb in the public employee workplace.

Religious rights advocates like federal Conservative minister Jason Kenney are “very concerned about any proposal that would discriminate unfairly against people based on their religion, based on their deepest convictions.”

Really? Deepest convictions? The vast majority of religious people have been regurgitated their “beliefs” via indoctrination by their parents, priests, rabbis, imams etc. since birth. Is it belief or brainwashing if it’s not a choice to “believe” or practice a religion?

How many of these talisman-wearing workers came to their “beliefs” on their own without said indoctrination? Let’s do a survey and then decide if these are really “deep convictions” or “deep brainwashings.”

Of course this bill should pass if we have any dignity left as a secular government.

Paul Alexander, Toronto

Presumably, Quebec will also initiate “religious police” to monitor the proposed Charter of Quebec Values, just as they have the ridiculous “language police” in place. Which leads me to ask myself, is this really happening in Canada?

This proposition reeks of the onset of fascism and Nazism that was born in Europe in the 1920s and quickly led to chaos and the holocaust in the years to follow. The Parti Quebecois’ fallacious assertions of the necessity for this charter should immediately be quashed by all right-minded Quebecers who should insist on their tax dollars being spent in a more productive way than on this blatantly racial proposal.

I wonder if Pauline Marois and some of her PQ cronies have been reading the infamous Mein Kampf.

Barry Bloch. Thornhill

Marois will go down in history as the first premier of the modern age. A person who recognized that the atheistic arguments of Dawkins, Hawking, and other respected intellectuals, make far more sense than the plethora of contradictory religious cults we endure today.

I say “endure” since the rationalist, the atheist, and the spiritual deist find that living in a world with weird religious costumes, artefacts, customs, and conflicting beliefs, is a primitive experience. It does not bode well for the rational management of human societies. A case that has been proven again, and again, with slaughter, and mayhem.

Even those who believe in a supreme spiritual entity as the creator of the universe, can not stomach the idea that such a being has the slightest interest in what we wear, what we eat, how we do our hair, whether we “cross” ourselves, or prostrate five times a day. Such a spiritual being would scoff at such nonsense, and be offended by such a childish interpretation of its greatness.

The real purpose of these religious costumes is to form recognizable clans. To form distinct groups. To form allegiances. To fracture society. To form totally irrational bonds that may be manipulated by their leaders — invariably for the leader’s personal gain in power, and property.

This is the truth about religious costumes, observances, and other mumbo jumbo. It is sickening truth in this modern age of intellectual clarity.

Canada, the official Canada, should have no part of it.

Peter Weygang, Bobcaygeon

Where have the morals of our world vanished? Where have the values of our world vanished? Where is the equilibrium between the understanding of appropriate and inappropriate doctrines?

I am severely saddened by Quebec’s decision to propose the Charter of Quebec Values. Isn’t Canada supposed to be a multicultural country? Isn’t Canada supposed to be a country that welcomes person’s beliefs with open arms?

As a Muslim living in Canada for a prolonged period, I believe every human on the face of this earth has the right to freedom of religion. Yet, those same rights are being torn down by the Quebec representatives.

Have the representatives even glanced at the pros and cons? Since such doctrines only create division, destruction, and detachment in our society.

This pathway should never have been carved because at this moment, in my eyes, Quebec is a prison. If I am going for a holiday vacation, I can assure you, Quebec won’t be on my list.

Zeeshan Ahmad, Toronto

It seems that not a day goes by that I do not see yet another headline referring to Quebec’s proposed “Charter of Values.” This proposed charter, released by the Parti Québécois, would forbid public employees to wear “overt religious symbols” at work, including turbans, hijabs, burkas, kippahs, and “large” crosses.

There are no reports that the wearing of “ostentatious” religious dress by a civil servant has adversely affected the service that they provide. It seems to me that expressing your religious affiliation does not correlate with your competence. I do not see any reason to believe that a doctor wearing a turban will provide me inferior healthcare in comparison with a doctor who does not wear religious dress.

So what’s Quebec’s problem?

According to Bernard Drainville, who is the minister in charge of this charter: “If the state is neutral, those working for the state should be equally neutral in their image.”

I suppose this makes sense. After all, Quebec is arguably the most secular of the provinces. Religious neutrality is in accordance with its secular philosophy known as laïcité. In fact, religious neutrality is already apparent in Quebec…

That is excluding, of course, the crucifix in the highest chamber of the Quebec state, i.e, the National Assembly, as well as Christmas trees which remain a part of public institutions. In fact, even under this proposed charter, crucifixes in the Quebec legislature and on top of Mount Royal, and religiously based names of geographic locations, schools and hospitals will not be removed. The Parti Québécois justifies its hypocrisy by not calling the crucifix a religious symbol, but a “patrimonial artefact”. The proposed charter will also not eliminate subsidies to religious private schools, nor will it ban opening prayers at municipal meetings.

What it will do is target minorities.

By its very nature, this proposed charter is putting minorities in a position of having to behave in a way that the majority finds acceptable.

To me, this proposed charter is a blatant act of discrimination. What gives the government the right to dictate our beliefs and undermine our freedom of religious expression? Why should we have to remove our crosses, our kippas, our turbans, or our hijabs simply because they do not conform to Quebec’s supposed “religious neutrality”?

Quebec Premier Pauline Marois has attempted to defend the charter’s aims by stressing the importance of its aims to the Parti Québécois and to the province. She has also said that women who wear hijabs and who work in daycares could be in positions to “incite children to practice religion.”

This statement by Marois is particularly irksome. I do not find her justifications valid nor do I believe that her fear of religious symbols is due to her willingness to ‘protect’ children from religion. If Muslim women who wear hijabs incite the practice of religion, don’t the displays of crucifixes in Quebec also incite the practice of religion? What about the fact that Christmas and Easter are accepted as civic holidays? Does that not place emphasis on religious undertones, if not religious practice?

The Parti Québécois is doing a grave disservice to children if they choose to shelter them from religion and the display of religion. Children should live in an environment in which their beliefs and practices of faith are not restricted. It is my firm belief that exposing children to multiculturalism promotes tolerance and understanding of different cultures. This is particularly important in this day and age, for with the rise of globalisation it is pertinent that we learn to live together in harmony – despite our differences in race, gender, origin, beliefs or religion.

“The time has come to rally around our common values,” Mr. Drainville has said. “They define who we are. Let’s be proud of them.”

Our “common values” as Canadian stem from and can be found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that the “freedom of conscience and religion” as well as the “freedom thought, belief, opinion and expressions” are fundamental freedoms. These are the “common values” we should be embracing and rallying for, yet these are the values that are being violated by this proposed Charter.

Calgary’s mayor, Naheed Nenshi rightly stated that, “What we’re looking at under this charter of secularism is intolerance. Plain and simple. We’re not talking about government neutrality. We’re actually physically saying to some children that because of the faith that you and your family follow, there are some jobs that you’re not eligible for.”

I find it frightening that polls suggest that there is growing support for this Charter amongst certain Quebec residents. I find the proposal of this charter and the support for it, a worrying reminder that society does not always progress forward towards civil rights and social harmony. In many cases, such as this one, society retreats backwards towards intolerance. It is becoming clear that certain political leaders propose discriminatory legislature, and thinly disguise their intolerance by stressing the importance of “preserving Quebec’s values”.

The freedom of religious expression is sacred to me, especially because I happen to wear a hijab. My choice to wear the hijab is empowering to me for it is a part of my identity. We are taught from a young age to be true to ourselves and express our individuality. By expressing my faith, I am expressing my individuality. If this freedom were to be taken away from me, so would my individuality be stolen from me.

No matter what Quebec Premier Pauline Marois says, this charter will not and cannot “unite the province”. How could it when it represses religious expression? How can Quebec be united if it targets pockets of its population and prohibits them from certain jobs simply for observing their religion? Canada is supposed to be a model of multiculturalism, and it is for this reason that we thrive as a whole. Our identity is our willingness to embrace all people of all cultures and traditions. Our strength lies within our unwavering belief in the fundamental freedoms and rights of all individuals.

How can we take away an essential freedom from our citizens? The Parti Québécois may seek to establish religious neutrality, but it will instead undermine the freedoms of minorities to practice their faith freely. The Charter of Values will only promote intolerance and do little to solve Quebec’s problems.

We cannot allow the spread of intolerance, for if we become divided by our differences then we have failed as a country. Quebec is making a devastating mistake if it continues through with this charter, for it is undermining the core values of what it means to be Canadian.

Perhaps instead of asking crosses to be removed, turbans and kippahs to be discarded and asking Muslim women such as me to unveil our heads – it is the Parti Québécois who should unveil the true intentions behind its proposed charter: that of discrimination and of breeding intolerance.

Ashna Asim, Grade 12 student, Sydney, N.S.

As a psychiatrist who values the findings of cognitive science and psychoanalysis, I believe there are many reasons for why people do what they do, and that some of those reasons are unconsciously determined.

While I understand the Parti Quebecois’ conscious rationales for introducing the new Quebec values legislation, I also find such legislation, on another, deeper level, both Islamophobic and anti-Semitic. Certainly it is unfair, insofar as it favours Christian symbolism such as the grand crucifix presiding over the Quebec assembly; even the French version of “O Canada” is heavily freighted with Christian symbolism — “Il sait porter la croix, indeed...”

It’s true that there is an increased influx of Middle Easterners and Africans fleeing their war-torn countries that are riddled with weaponry, much of it originally supplied by the superpowers. However, Quebec could decide to selectively favour Christian refugees from these Muslim lands without being any more bigoted than they are being now by banning essentially harmless forms of cultural dress.

A headscarf, a turban or a kippah are not Afghan burqas, and these holier-than-thou (more secular-than-thou) party officials know full well that is the case.

Ron Charach, Toronto

Religious freedom has become an abstract concept with seemingly no definition and no limit. Some garments and objects are arbitrarily deemed “religious.” Concepts such as honour killings and modesty impose a double standard on women, who are not permitted to be leaders of their own faiths. Some religions hold homophobic beliefs in the name of freedom of religion. Some school systems disallow students and do not hire staff who do not follow certain religious practices or beliefs.

Some religious elders commit crimes of child sexual abuse with impunity. Some religions are historically deemed to have precedence and power in legislatures and in taking oaths in court, while the traditional deities of aboriginal peoples are discounted in the same places.

Some faiths seek to subvert Canadian law with religious law, which allows for acts that most Canadians would not condone. The rights of those with no faith or religion are not viewed as a form of freedom.

To my mind religions exacerbate divisions in society, much more than secularism.

Diane Sullivan, Toronto

Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney, in response to Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values, says he plans to vigorously defend the right to freedom of religion to which “all Canadians are entitled.” This a bit rich coming from someone who only last December was perfectly comfortable stomping on the right of Muslim women to wear the burqa or niqab during the citizenship ceremony.

Kenney is no heroic defender; more like a huge pretender. His record speaks for itself, Mr. Kenney is a bullying Islamophobe.

Pia Berger, Toronto

Being a secular society, both in principle and in actions, and to portray an image of neutrality to its citizenry, the proposed Charter of Values tabled by the government of Quebec should be welcome. We see too much division and ghettoization in our society these days.

Aquil Ali, Toronto

Guess Quebec’s off my bucket-list of places to visit soon as my spiritually diverse “religious jewelry” may run afoul of the “Profusely Quirky” party’s new so-called Charter of Values, if enacted.

For though, I honour Jesus Christ for originally awakening my spirituality by wearing a cross (a Celtic one to honour my pagan roots), in deference to my basic ecumenical nature it’s nestled next to a crescent moon and star to honour Islam, an Ankh to honour a sense of Egyptian ancestry, and a Hawaiian “lei palaoa” or whaletooth-shaped pendant to “guard my Mana” (life-force).

Wearing religious symbolism is not a statement that one is holding their beliefs out as some kind of “logo,” advertising it as better than others’ beliefs. It’s a demonstration of personal devotion.

After all, we are all merely spiritual beings — here in this lifetime to have our own individual and personal “human experience” while we love, honour, and respect each other’s God-given diversity.

Liz Stonard, Port Alberni

So long joie de vivre, hello facism. Strong language maybe, but it’s the only way to describe Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values. Not a lot of values here — just xenophobia, intolerance, ignorance and racism.

Quebec has long thought of itself as a more modern and progressive place than the rest of Canada. But Canada, for all its imperfections, has become a dynamic multi-ethnic and multicultural society. Quebec’s proposed charter has no place in this country.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

Today I nearly got into my first argument with my daughter about what she was wearing. I bit my tongue though, and said nothing- knowing that, at nine, she needed to start expressing herself independently and facing the consequences. But as a mother, it was hard letting her go out dressed the way she was – knowing how she would be judged, knowing that now – in some parts of our country – she would be deemed less than a full citizen.

My daughter wasn’t leaving the house dressed for the VMAs or with anything emblazoned on her bottom. No. She had topped her country-girl uniform of jeans and a plaid blouse with her signature hot pink hijab.

Neither my husband nor I have ever asked or encouraged her to wear the hijab. In fact, to my shame, I have asked her on several occasions not to wear it. She buys them with her own pocket money and wears them with a style and grace that belies the negative cloud that surrounds the whole issue.

How do I tell her that she is less for her choice? She has grown up in home where we openly discuss issues of social justice and equality. She and her siblings are well-versed in the civil rights movements of the 60s and can rattle off both the Declaration of Independence and the relevant parts of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How do I tell them civil rights can be revoked at any time? That because of baseless and illogical fears that her hijab will somehow make those under her “authority” uncomfortable, she must deny a part of who she is.

I have taught – wearing the hijab – for the better part of two decades at almost every level; from elementary through to post-secondary. Shockingly, I have not found an onslaught of students suddenly inspired to become more religious. Many of my students wear their secularism and atheism far more prominently than I do my scarf – they still have bad grammar and openly sprinkle their conversations with profanity. Perhaps my hijab does not have any power over others after all.

The fear is not that people in authority will wield some sort of religious power over those in their care. The real fear is that – in the example of children in daycare – young Canadians will grow up without fear of the religious symbols we want them to hate. The memory that a good doctor with a turban or a kindly civil servant wearing a yarmulke or hijab will go a long way against eliminating prejudices against religious minorities. For a society that lays claim to secular egalite, I would think this would be a good thing.

The ban will likely not get past the Supreme Court, but the fact that it has been proposed at all, and so heavily supported by Quebec’s Francophone population is a frightening reminder that society does not always progress forward and that civil rights are as transient as political power. I have not yet told my daughter about this proposed ban on the way she dresses (on her), I don’t know how to formulate the discussion. I know the first thing she will ask me is, “How can we let this happen? Why aren’t we doing something about it?” This is the kind of take-charge attitude she has.

What do I tell her, Quebec? That she should study law, become the best in her field, and become a judge?

Oh, right, she can’t.

Samah Marei, Welland

There is a history in Quebec of intolerance toward minority groups. In the Orwellian world of Premier Pauline Marois, anyone who is not a Roman Catholic or does not speak French is a second-class citizen. In the last provincial election, she made negative comments about the Queen of England.

Marois believes that non-Roman Catholics and non French-speaking people are the enemy. In reality, she is the enemy along with her ideology of hate and fear. She is the most dangerous person in Canada.

I am proud to be an English-speaking Canadian of British ancestry. I love my country and I’m a staunch federalist. I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church but I am proud to be a devout Christian of another Christian denomination. I respect the Queen of England for what she is, the head of Canada. I am proud of my Canadian values of respecting someone no matter what religion a person is and respecting someone no matter what language a person speaks.

Ken Sisler, Newmarket

I don’t have a problem with Quebec’s proposed ban on wearing religious symbols when in the employ of publicly funded jobs.

I see no evidence that restrictions on the freedom of worship of any religion has been forwarded. The right to worship in whatever faith you wish to is, as you might say, “written in stone.”

The wearing of religious symbols is a statement to others that tells them of what religion you are a member. I don’t think that is necessary as a requirement of an individual’s faith to advertise their faith.

If the purpose is to identify with others of their faith I ask, to what purpose, when they are to respect everyone equally.

When I see a police, or any public servant I want that person to identify with their position, which is to serve the public, with no other distinctions or affiliations.

Off hours they can wear what they like.

Bob Hunter, Cobourg

The latest death rattle of a dying cause, Quebec separation, is the Charter of Values, which seeks to control how a citizen in a purportedly free province may dress. Ontario has an obligation to counter this political mischief with a message of acceptance. We must post a huge sign near the Quebec boarder: “Welcome to Ontario. Come as you are,”

Raymond Peringer, Toronto

Your editorial proclaims with Major Hoople-like bluster: “It’s little surprise that Marois would display such rank ignorance about this country.”

In the next breath, so to speak, in support of your editorial, you invoke: “Quebec’s previous sovereigntist premiers were well-travelled, cosmopolitan figures. René Lévesque served as a war correspondent with the U.S. army in the Second World War; Jacques Parizeau held a doctorate from the London School of Economics; Lucien Bouchard was a former ambassador to France and a federal minister.”

You inadvertently, no doubt, omitted the facts that the living premiers mentioned are committed to an independent Quebec and fully support Premier Pauline Marois who will lead Quebec out of Canada no later than July 1, 2017, notwithstanding the continuing denial and misinformation being fed to the Star readers by your Quebec correspondents.

If you must blame someone for the split up of Canada, blame James Whitney, Ontario prime minister, who imposed Regulation 17 in 1912, banning the teaching of French in Ontario. One hundred years later, Canada’s Commissioner of Official Languages is enforcing French in Alberta, British Columbia and other provinces as a condition to work in the government of Canada in futile and costly attempts to undo the damage caused by Whitney and his colleagues.

The continuing failure of the mainstream media, including the Star, to provide accurate information will only continue to divide what was once one of the finest countries in the world.

Robert G. Sheehan-Gauthier, Ottawa

Perhaps we should point out to Ms Marois that any Quebec sovereignty they would also relinquish our dollar and our public heathcare model.

Maybe she can use the franc and the U.S. healthcare plan as models, because if she thinks Quebec can separate from the rest of Canada but still retain use our public services she’s most likely high on crack.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

As an unhyphenated Canadian, I would like to suggest we follow the counsel of Nelson Mandela by aiming for a non-racial Canadian society, instead of focusing on so-called multiculturalism. His words bear repeating: “We demand a non-racial society because when you talk about multiracialism, you have in this country so many races. This is a way to perpetuate the concept of ‘race’ and we prefer to say we want a non-racial society.”

Raymond Heard, Toronto

Quebec Premier Pauline Marois may well have a not-so-hidden agenda in regards to the PQ’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values.Yes, it displays a most distorted sense of secularism but it also is probably intended as a sort of wedge issue that could be a lead card in a seperatist referendum.

A scenario would have the Charter being passed by the Quebec legislature and then being overruled in a Charter of Rights challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada. Then Marois and company would cry foul and campaign in a referendum saying that English Canada will not allow Quebec to be Quebec and thus the need for sovereignty.

Politics at its crudest to be sure but it is not beyond possibility that such a stunt might actually work.

Simon Rosenblum, Toronto

I wish Canada would just be Canada and all those immigrants from other cultures who came to live here should have stayed where they were if their culture is so important to them.

As a Canadian if I want to experience those cultures I will go and visit those countries. I’m tired of it being pushed in our face as a part of our everyday life. Canada is losing any unique identity.

Iona D’Cruz, Toronto

I find it interesting that discussions on multiculturalism in Canada quite frequently boil down to the upholding of religious symbols and ideology. Let me remind your readers that religion is about following a set of beliefs, whereas multiculturalism is about co-existing with diverse ethnic and racial groups in a country that was historically “white.”

Although these are very different issues, some religions, such as Judaism or Sikhism, are more tied to specific ethnic and racial groups than others, such as Islam or Christianity, which take on diverse appearances among people from different parts of the world.

I agree that so many religions in a country such as Canada create the potential for a very divided society, and given the possible risks, I wonder whether we should then be asking whether “Canada (and Quebec) still has work to do on the multiple religions being observed in its jurisdiction.”

Yaseen Zubairi, Toronto

Liberals oppose ban on religious symbols, Sept. 6

According to this article, “Quebec’s council for the status of women raised the idea in 2011 report in which it criticized all the major religions for taking a discriminatory stance toward women.” This is quite a blanket statement about the status of women from all the major religions.

Has this council read Galatians 3:28 in the Bible, which says that God does not disciminate between male and female, slave and free, as well as the different ethinicities in the world. Or how about Galatians 2:6 and Ephesians 6:9, which tells us that God shows partiality to no one?

While the other religions of the world like Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism may or may not show a discriminatory stance towards women, the point here is that the bible clearly does not discriminate against women. So please check your facts before you make such generalizations.

James Kang, Scarborough

The ‘other’ has no place in PQ’s charter of values, Opinion Sept. 3

Thank you for publishing this piece by Amira Elghawaby. It is refreshing, as a reader, to see both sides of the debate represented in what is turning into a slap in the face for the very values this country prides itself as being built on.

Maha Mankal, Ottawa

Thank you for publishing a piece witch offers a perspective that is often marginalized, though not unpopular amongst many Canadian citizens and Quebecois who are just as appalled by such an effort to push forth nationalist ideals. As global citizens and a human civilization having witnessed history, we simply cannot accept such a call for the encouragement for a narrow definition of Quebecois identity.